alannah myles "black velvet"
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1353
Printed Date: 11 May 2025 at 8:57am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: alannah myles "black velvet"
Posted By: edtop40
Subject: alannah myles "black velvet"
Date Posted: 28 August 2006 at 8:08pm
|
another interesting one here we have
the cassingle starts as if it skips and the version from her self titled cd starts smooth........by pure chance i found the correct cassingle version on the cd (S) (4:45) Flashback 78308 Billboard #1 Hits Of The ‘90s this cd has the correct skipped sounding intro....does anyone have the 45 and does it contain this skipped sounding intro or is it smooth.... ------------- edtop40 |
Replies:
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 30 August 2006 at 4:25am
| Wow, Ed... Your attention to detail knows no end. You're amazing. |
Posted By: Pat Downey
Date Posted: 30 August 2006 at 6:45am
|
Ed I am quite impressed with your detective work on Black Velvet. Seems as though there is a very brief segment truncated on the cassette single introduction and the version found on Billboard #1 Hits Of The '90s (about .15 seconds). When I checked the vinyl 45 I discovered that this truncation is present on the vinyl 45 too.
Chat board members, do you think this obvious mastering error should qualify this truncated version to be called a "45 version"? |
Posted By: maciav
Date Posted: 30 August 2006 at 8:38am
|
I vote for the truncated version to be called "45 version". I really didn't know there was any other version since my 45, and my "Billboard #1 Hits of the 90's" CD have the truncated version. And in my area at least (Southcentral PA), that was the version always played on the pop stations and the rock stations. ------------- Mike C. from PA |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 30 August 2006 at 7:11pm
|
Since we're only talking about the first .15 seconds of "Black Velvet" being truncated on commercial single copies, I would actually be more inclined to not call this a "45 version". It's one thing if an opening note was deliberately edited off the 45 (such as on the Little River Band's "The Other Guy"), but it's another thing if the opening note is fractionally truncated due to what is clearly a mastering error. I would instead suggest making a comment in the database under the song title as follows:
The opening note of the intro is very slightly truncated on commercial single copies. Then, the following comment could be posted next to the Billboard #1 Hits of the '90s disc entry, and any other CDs that may apply: (contains the very slightly truncated intro heard on commercial single copies). Any other opinions? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 30 August 2006 at 10:30pm
| I also agree with Todd. Given that it wasn't a deliberate edit or fade in, I'd vote not to call it a 45 version. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 30 August 2006 at 10:52pm
| I agree with Todd as well... a note under the song title, then a note beside CDs that match, something like "(with trucated opening note)," is the most logical. I agree that it's not a real "45 version." |
Posted By: maciav
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 8:07am
|
Todd, Aaron, and Brian:
I came to this site as a passionate collector of music. I found out about this site by doing research when I became fed up from spending money on CDs, and more-times-than-not, purchasing one that did not have the version of the song that I wanted. In fact, my eyes were opened very widely when I found out how many versions of singles exist. Having said that: I am a novice when it comes to mixes and making home versions of music. I do not have expensive software and / or hardware that allows me to "re-create" the 45-version, etc. Nor have I worked as a professional in the music industry, other than working in a record store during my twenties. Therefore, I may be looking at this from a different perspective than the rest of you. Having said that: Don't record companies somtimes "play games" with their music releases? Isn't it possible that Atlantic intended for the 45 released in 1989 - 1990 to have the truncation? If we can assume that to be true, how can we assume that the single had a "mastering error"? But really, isn't that all a moot point also? To me, the only thing that matters is that the original 45 had the truncation. To me, that means any CD with the truncation has the "true" "45 version". Again, I am a passionate fan of music and not a technical expert like the rest of you. But at the same time, I wanted to express my thoughts, and based on my reasoning, see if the rest of you are in agreement with me. Thanks. ------------- Mike C. from PA |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 10:51am
|
maciav, I understand your reasoning. Personally, I highly doubt that a record company would purposely truncate the intro by only a split second. Why bother? I also don't think they "play games" with their music releases. After all, this is an artist's work they are playing with. I would think that most artists don't like their music tinkered with.
The reasons I agree with Todd are because 1) I would not want to spend money to purchase the "45 version" of "Black Velvet" knowing that the only difference is a slight .15 second truncation on the intro, and 2) given Todd's suggestion to list the note about the truncation being present on commercial copies, I would know that I didn't have to search for a "45 version," while you would know that you'll have to buy the truncated version to have what was released commercially. I think Todd's suggestion would satisfy both of us as collectors, while listing "45 version" would cause some people to buy this song again and be disappointed to find out there's only a .15 second difference. |
Posted By: maciav
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 12:11pm
|
Aaron,
Think about this: if the record companies didn't "play games", this web site / chat board may not even exist. It is only because of all of the different mixes / versions of singles that record companies release (totally pre-determined by them and at our mercy) that we are even having this discussion. In that sense, I do think they play games. They have to play games in this sense to drive their sales so that people will keep buying the same songs over and over again. Don't you agree? And I don't find it hard to believe at all that Atlantic could have purposely released a slightly truncated "Black Velvet." And even if it was unintentional, Atlantic apparently chose not to correct it during its chart run to #1. To me, this makes it the official "45 version" that was in release at the time. To your other point, many artists have had battles with record companies over the final product to be released to the public and lost. ------------- Mike C. from PA |
Posted By: Underground Dub
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 12:40pm
|
Songs are most commonly edited by labels to keep them at a desirable length for both radio and the 7" format or to lend 'hit value'. This is hardly a case of a removed verse or chorus repeat.
The average (and slightly above average) listener would not notice a track starting .15 seconds late (meaning edtop40 is just a freak, that's all...j/k!) and to state this was specially done for the single is frankly rediculous. There are singles with milisecond drop outs in one channel, but we aren't going to consider such a thing a single version are we? "Album Version with mastering glitch" better describes this kind of issue. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 1:20pm
|
I agree that it's a mastering error, but it should be noted in the database that all singles had that mastering error.
|
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 1:25pm
Nah... it's not like it's a different mix. I'm glad we noticed it, and if I were using it on a collection, I personally would probably use the truncated version. But this wasn't intentional.
Don't fret, neither do we... I don't think any of us spent more than $50 on the software we use to edit songs. |
maciav wrote:Posted By: maciav
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 3:00pm
|
Brian,
Where do you get software like this, and what computer requirements do you need? ------------- Mike C. from PA |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:40pm
I agree that record companies often times remix singles, make edits, etc. I wouldn't necessarily call that "playing games." They are doing it for a particular purpose---to make a song sound better or to shorten the length for radio play. I honestly don't think someone suggested "Hey, just for fun, let's cut off the first .15 seconds for the single release." I'm certainly glad that this group of collectors has a place to discuss the many different versions of songs. I don't disagree with you, maciav, that if you really want to have exactly what was issued on the single, you'll need to get that truncated intro. I just don't want to make unncessary purchases, and I feel a "45 version" comment is misleading. As Underground Dub says above, there are plenty of mastering glitches to note. Just because the EQ is slightly different or it fades a couple seconds early, to me, does not mean it should get a special designation. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 31 August 2006 at 4:45pm
I'm not sure what everyone else uses, but I am most comfortable with Cool Edit Pro. I use versions 1.2 and 2.1. Both of them are out of print, but you can find official copies on ebay for around $50.00. I like version 2.1 better overall; however there are a few functions in 1.2 that tend to work better than in the newer version. Today, Cool Edit Pro (formerly sold by Syntrillium) is sold under the name Adobe Audition. I believe it retails for a few hundred dollars. I've never used it, so I don't know if it's better, worse, or the same as Cool Edit Pro. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 01 September 2006 at 3:40pm
Very beautifully articulated points. One other thing I might add is to keep in mind that those of us who seek out multiple versions of a song make up a very small fraction of the music buying public. I don't think record labels release edits and remixes of songs with the belief that lots of additional money will be made as a result of consumers seeking to purchase each version. As Aaron has pointed out, labels are always seeking optimum ways to increase exposure for their songs and artists and often a song will be edited or remixed so that it is more suitable for radio airplay or for a particular radio format. I believe the overwhelming majority of the music buying public are content to have just one version of a song they like, regardless if its an LP version, 45 version, DJ edit, etc. I very much respect the thoughtfulness and passion behind your position, maciav. By the same token, I believe having the database specifically note which domestic CD releases contains the slightly truncated opening note of "Black Velvet" adequately serves readers who are actively seeking the song on CD in its exact commercial single incarnation. I agree with Aaron that I would be unhappy if I spent money purchasing a CD I'm led to believe contains a 45 version of "Black Velvet" only to eventually discover that the sole difference between the 45 and LP is a tiny mastering error in the song's opening note. |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 02 September 2006 at 7:38am
|
ok...i've been on vaca for a few days and it looks like i stirred up quite a bit of talk on this one........my opinion is, regardless of why or how they did what they did, they did do it..........and as beening a stickler for detail, i would want to know about this difference and which cd's have the correct single version and which don't...........so.......i would list each cd with it's version and then ALSO put a note below the title saying something like "first 0:015 of this song is truncated, either by design or error, but the 45 version intro is clearly different than the full cd/lp version"..............end of story........ ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: Underground Dub
Date Posted: 02 September 2006 at 10:24am
|
"first 0:015 of this song is truncated, either by design or error, but the 45 version intro is clearly different than the full cd/lp version"..............
...but that sounds so stupid... |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 02 September 2006 at 10:33am
|
why??...it is different, no??? ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 02 September 2006 at 11:05am
|
Not to start a big debate, but I think what we're trying to say is "where do you draw the line?"
I don't think any of us disagree that a note should be made in these cases. The question is do we call it a 45 version or not? When does a difference become significant enough to give it the "45 version" designator? I would argue that this is a case that does not warrant a "45 version," but only a note that tells us about the truncation. Do you agree, Ed? |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 02 September 2006 at 11:10am
|
yes.....okay.....that's fine....but it should be noted which cd contains the correct 45/single version.....which i see pat has dobne.....that's all i'm saying.....version, mix, length.....it doesn't matter to me the verbige.......as long as we get it right.... ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: crapfromthepast
Date Posted: 08 November 2007 at 9:01pm
|
I found shorter edits of "Black Velvet" on some of my
CDs, so I went poking around in the forum and found this thread. Much of this may already be in the database, but I thought I'd share anyway. The album version of the song runs 4:46, plus or minus a few seconds. Many of the following CDs have printed times of 4:49, and all have the album version:
45 has a printed run time of 4:40, which seems to match all my CD copies, so I don't think I'd ever bothered to play the 45 in the 17 years I've owned it. Until tonight... Much to my surprise, the opening note is cut off, just as described above, which is indeed the first 0.15 seconds of the song. I noticed that the same thing happened with John Parr's "St. Elmo's Fire", also on Atlantic, except that for that track, the opening note is also cut off on most of the CD releases. I'm 100% certain this is a mastering mistake - it's just good policy to open a song with a downbeat, and I can't imagine that the artist, producer or record company would want it otherwise. The opening downbeat is intact on all of the CDs listed above. I'd put this 45 mastering glitch on par with a few CD versions of Men At Work's "It's A Mistake", where the first of the opening guitar strums is cut off. What's not obvious, and is probably not in the database, is that the UK single is an early fade of the US version. This UK single version runs 4:02, with a 32-beat fade from 3:42-4:02, and is also missing the first 0.15 seconds of the downbeat! The versions on the these UK compilations both run 4:02 and are missing the downbeat:
|
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 09 November 2007 at 9:24am
i take exception to my freak classification, even if i am one! ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: edtop40
Date Posted: 20 May 2011 at 6:36pm
|
was there ever a promo cd single issued for this song? ------------- edtop40 |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 6:26am
|
Just to dredge this topic up 7 years later. Was the promo CD single issued with the truncated intro? ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 2:42pm
|
PR 2884-2
1. non-described version (listed 4:49; actual 4:47) The intro on this version is NOT truncated. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 12:02am
|
I have to chuckle as I read through this thread, even though this attention to detail is EXACTLY what I love about this group.
I'm surprised, though, that nobody suggested marking it as "single LENGTH," since it's the LP version, just 0.15 seconds shorter. :-D (I heard this performed on The Masked Singer by "The Night Angel" on Fox TV last night and realized I didn't already have it in rotation!) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 12:23am
|
I see we have a wise guy, eh? You should know that it can’t be a single
LENGTH because the difference in length occurs at the beginning and not at the end. :-D ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 7:50am
|
One thing about this song that always bothered me a little is that at about the 1:52 mark in the song, there appears to be what sounds like a slight click on the word, "He'll.." in the line "He'll leave you longing for...". I know that's just the way the song was recorded, but it always made me think of listening to Vinyl 45's when I was younger and hearing little clicks on them. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 12:18pm
I wonder Dan if that sound you hear is also present on the vinyl 45? Could be when it transferred. It was only 1990 if I recall... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 3:42pm
|
I hear that click too! I think I always assumed it was one of the guitarists clicking against something... but it would be VERY interesting to see if it's on the vinyl 45. (My source is the original CD from 1989.) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 4:19pm
|
I've never had the 45, but I've heard the click on every configuration of the song I've ever listened to - on the Cassette Single, the few VA comps I have that contain the song, and the video. So I assume it would be on the 45 as well. I sometimes think it was someone clicking on a switch in the studio and somehow it got onto the recording. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: KentT
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 6:47pm
A decent cheap Behringer audio interface and a free copy of Audacity works just fine, with a little learning and knowhow. Export the file to .wav when finished. Less than $30.Audacity works well enough for broadcast work. ------------- I turn up the good and turn down the bad! |
Posted By: crapfromthepast
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 8:34pm
|
I took a look at one of the digital files to see what the little click looks like. It's a digital glitch, not an analog artifact like someone switching something on or off. It's 31 samples of near-silence in the left channel, 19 samples of near-silence in the right channel, followed very shortly afterward by about 5 samples of near-silence in the left channel.
The glitch shows up in all of the versions I have on CD (all thirteen of them), plus (thanks to YouTube) the UK vinyl 12" single, the UK vinyl 7" single, and a cassette single. The UK vinyl 12" single, the UK vinyl 7" single, and the cassette single also have the opening note truncated. I couldn't find a YouTube video of the actual US vinyl 45. ------------- There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one http://www.crapfromthepast.com" rel="nofollow - Crap From The Past . |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 30 April 2020 at 8:58pm
For what it's worth the click is absent from my copy on TM Century's GoldDisc 905N. They were lifting their music directly from promo CD singles at this point. It may be this way on the promo CD single, or the folks at TM removed it using NR. ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 01 May 2020 at 4:21am
That's interesting. Can anyone here who has the promo confirm if it has the click at the 1:52 mark? If it doesn't, I'll try to track down a copy of it. It would be great after 30 years to finally hear the song without it. ------------- Dan In Philly |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 01 May 2020 at 7:01am
|
The promo CD single does have the click at 1:52. This appears to be a mastering/tape issue and not anything that was intended to be there. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: AdvprosD
Date Posted: 14 November 2020 at 10:31pm
|
I recently uncorked a set of German Time-Life issues. The 90's Collection, Time Life Music TL 608/02.
I noticed the truncated intro and immediately had to come back here to re-read the chatter surrounding this song. Thanks guys! Now I'm going to have to listen again for the "Click" in the refrain. I guess, once I hear it, I'll never be able to not hear it ever again. Anywhoo, It would seem that they also didn't bother to fix any of the errors when they shipped it across the pond. I'd like to read about the folks who claimed engineering credit for this, but I don't read German. ------------- <Dave> Someone please tell I-Heart Radio that St. Louis is not known as The Loo! |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 02 April 2021 at 5:42pm
Was it an mp3? I remember Ron saying also that the pre-1993 era of TM leaves a lot to be desired, meaning the promos are usually superior for this era.... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 02 April 2021 at 5:59pm
Dan, if you want the 45's two tracks they are available for download on Qobuz. Could be a chance they don't have the click... https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/black-velvet-if-you-want-to-alannah-myles/0603497973507 - https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/black-velvet-if-you-want-t o-alannah-myles/0603497973507 ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |